Whether it is after 9/11, or the rise in the popularity of camera-phones, or even the relative easiness for people to put their thoughts up online, citizen journalism is undeniably climbing up the ladder as “the new media” – so much that it has taken up sections of online news websites. Some of its qualities, of course, include:
- everyone gets a say
- if the story concerns an expert, he/she can provide a deeper and more thorough analysis than a journalist
- it has the rawness that can fully express the citizens’ point of view, especially if the story has victims involved. (What’s better than getting the inside scoop of what REALLY happened?)
But isn’t that the job of a “professional” journalist? If this distinction is even necessary.
As much as I agree with all these good points, I, as an aspiring journalist, also believe I do not pay Ryerson University five grand a year to learn how to press that big round button on my cellphone.
Journalists CAN provide readers with both objective and subjective stories: we know all the right questions to ask; we know all the right people to talk to so every side of the story IS represented; we know all the right details to look for – details that, even told by the victim, would not know to put in because heck, no one would care about the yellow lighter or the stained carpet when a building is on fire. But these details, for a journalist, could be a lead, a new spin to the story, or even a flashing light bulb for a different idea.
So while I think having awards for citizen journalism is fun, citizen journalism could never replace professional journalism because as much as I appreciate the rawness of citizen journalism, it stops at subjectivity. Even if it’s a doctor blogging about cancer or a WWII veteran talking about his past experiences; all the sides are not represented and that’s how “real” readers are getting it.
To put it simply, it’s the difference between Cloverfield and The Day After Tomorrow.
